Lim Hng Kiang
Singapore
“The company has made commitments to recycle the ash, and as for renewable energy, the gasification project is not an energy project, it is not a generation company (genco). It is to produce hydrogen and carbon monoxide or, essentially, carbon. Because as feedstock to the petrochemical sector, you need more C and more H2.”
“The Government will continue to recover the IIA awarded if the company fails any conditions or breaches the legislative amendments. I would like to highlight that there are no errant cases in the last five years for IIA and the current amendments are, therefore, not reactionary in nature, but are being made for legislative clarity.”
“In addition, the IIA scheme will be extended till 31 December 2022. Clauses 10 to 13 give legislative effect to this change. The remaining legislative changes arising from our periodic review of the income tax system are either administrative or technical in nature.”
“Data on household and individual savings rates by income groups are not available. However, data on the aggregate level of household financial assets can be obtained from the Household Sector balance sheet compiled by the Department of Statistics.”
“The aggregate level of financial assets owned by Singapore’s household sector6 in each of the past five years is provided in Table 1 below. Data on the amount of financial assets owned by households and individuals in the different income percentiles is not available.”
“The Second Review of the Comprehensive Economic Cooperation Agreement (Second CECA Review) is ongoing. The review is taking some time as both countries have our respective interests to work through, such as in the area of labour mobility. Our agencies regularly engage Indian counterparts to work through issues collaboratively.”
The complete record
Every one of 2,677 lines we hold for Lim Hng Kiang, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 52 of 54.
“That is why we set a very low ratio of 40% for the 3-room flat so that, if they can afford it, we will build the additional toilet for them. The HDB will also look at how we can separate the existing toilet into separate compartments for a toilet and a bathroom so that we can make it more convenient. In addition, HDB is also studying whether we can put a wash basin in the master bedroom. Let me just say that the HDB's Upgrading Programme is one of the key programmes in our next phase to build up the assets owned by every Singaporean. It will cater for all Singaporeans living in the older estates who are happy to continue to live there. Let me now turn to the problems of people who want to buy newer and bigger flats, the concerns raised by Dr Vasoo and Dr Ho Tat Kin. Let me explain the situation. The profile of HDB flat applicants today is very different from the past. In the past, the applicants were primarily first-time buyers. They were thankful just to be allocated a flat and tended not to be too particular about location or design. Today, about 50% of our flat applicants are upgraders. Upgrader applicants already have a home of their own and can afford to be more particular and hold out for a flat in the right location and of the right design. This change in the profile of HDB flat applicants became apparent and started to pose a problem around 1985 when HDB ended up with a large stock of unsold flats in Yishun and Woodlands. Applicants in the queue were not prepared to pick flats in these estates. The previous waiting list system was, therefore, no longer tenable. The booking system was, therefore, implemented to respond to this change in the profile of the flat buyers.”
“So the whole package is designed so that the old and the poor are able to afford their share of the upgrading. 4.45 pm Dr Tan Cheng Bock also asked whether the precincts will become disharmonious if different blocks opt for the different packages. What I envisage would be that the Advisor to the CCCwill gauge the level of affordability of the precinct and will offer one package to them for voting. I believe most precincts will be able to afford the Standard Package so the design will be based on the Standard Package. And for those blocks that want the space-adding item, the design will accommodate the space-adding item. So I can assure Dr Tan Cheng Bock that the precinct will be harmonious and well-designed. Dr Vasoo raised the issue of rejuvenation of old estates. Besides upgrading, we also have other plans to attract the younger generation into the old estates. For example, we have announced that existing residents can buy over their neighbour's 3-room flat so as to convert it and make it into a bigger flat. This will allow new households or bigger families who need bigger flats to buy over their neighbour's flat if the neighbour is moving out and, therefore, remain in their estate. We have also, in areas where it is possible, redeveloped new flats in the old estates so as to inject new residents into the estates. So we are doing all we can to rejuvenate the older estates. Mr Choo Wee Khiang raised the problem of flats having only one toilet cum bathroom. He requested that in the Upgrading Programme, we should consider adding another toilet. I am fully in sympathy with him. Those flats which were built in the very old days were very small and they only had one toilet cum bathroom and it created a lot of problems in the "morning peak".”
“I agree with Dr Tan Cheng Bock that the high cost of the additional space-adding item must be highlighted to Singaporeans and the cost-sharing ratio must be more evenly spread so that only those who truly value and are prepared to pay for their share will opt for them. Dr Tan Cheng Bock suggested that the space-adding item should be optional for the 4-room and 5-room flats. That is, indeed, the case. If they are prepared to pay for a higher cost-sharing ratio for their space-adding item, they will opt for it. If they do not find it good value for money, they will opt out. Dr Tan also asked that the subsidy for the 3-room flats should be raised from 60% to 90% for the space-adding items. I think 60% is already a fairly generous percentage. We recognise the needs of the 3-room households for additional space and the suggestion put up by Mr Choo Wee Khiang for an additional toilet. And that is why we try to bring the percentage down as low as possible. Dr Tan Cheng Bock also asked whether residents in the old estates would be able to finance their share of the Upgrading Programme. Before we embark on the upgrading of every precinct, we consult the residents and we do a study of the CPF accounts. Most residents in the old 3-room flats that were bought 15 or 20 years ago would have paid up their flats and they are able to pay the additional $3,500 or $13,000, whether they opt for a Standard Package or a Standard-plus Package. They can take up a loan from the HDB repayable over 10 years and they pay a very low interest rate, 0.1% above the CPF rate. For those genuinely very poor and are not able to pay the loan, HDB will hold on to the loan and only take back the payments after they have sold the flat.”
“If you look at the experience of other countries, the conventional wisdom is that the average property price is about five times the average gross annual income. Some cities where housing prices are generally considered high, this figure is much higher. For example, in Tokyo, it is 9.4 times the average annual income. In Frankfurt it is 7.5, and in New York it is 7. In Singapore, if you look at the flats purchased in 1992, among the 3-room type, comparing the average price and the average household income, this is a ratio of 3.4. So the people buying 3-room flats are paying 3.4 times their average annual income. For 4-room, it is 4.9; for 5-room, it is 4.7; and for Executive flats, it is 5.5. So housing prices in Singapore are well within the range in other countries, despite the shortage of land in Singapore. So this shows that housing prices in Singapore, on the whole, are affordable and do not take up an excessive proportion of Singaporeans' household income. I will address this issue later on when we talk about affordability for the lower income groups. I mentioned just now that the three programmes for the future are (1) upgrading of old flats; (2) allowing Singaporeans to upgrade to new and bigger flats; and (3) upgrading to private property. Let me now take the upgrading of old flats and address the questions posed by Dr Tan Cheng Bock. The cost-sharing ratio, which I announced on Wednesday, is intended to benefit the lower income groups so that their asset value will also increase under the Upgrading Programme. Again, we have been prudent in our approach.”
“The view that we have spent too much in housing is not supported by macro-economics evidence. Let us compare the share of residential construction in total investment in Singapore over time as well as other countries. In the 1970s, the share of residential construction in Singapore was 18% of total investment. In the 1980s, this rose to 22% of total investment, because we were encouraging home ownership. In 1991 and 1992, this has dropped to 16% of total investment. So it is not true that we are over-investing in residential construction. The proportion has in fact dropped. Investment in residential construction has not crowded out other worthwhile investments. Let us compare our investment in residential construction with other countries. As I indicated earlier, Singapore's investment has dropped from 22% to 16%. In Japan, it is about 20%; USA and Canada, about 25% of total investment is in residential construction; West Germany and France, about 28%. Interestingly, whereas ours has dropped from 22% to 16% in the 1990s, South Korea's share of residential construction has in fact increased to 24% in the 1990s. I concede that Hong Kong is probably the only country with very low investment in housing. On the average, they invest about 10% of their total investment in housing. But Singaporeans have to make the decision. Are Singaporeans prepared to live under the same conditions as Hong Kong? Is Hong Kong, in fact, under-investing in housing, because it is not a popularly elected government? So at the macro-level, the evidence shows that housing is not crowding out other worthwhile investments. Many MPs have asked whether affordability has fallen. Let us look at the individual level and ask: what proportion of a household income is taken up by housing?”
“We have achieved home ownership and that is something that we can be proud of. So where do we go from here? The Prime Minister answered that question three days ago. The Government's objective is to encourage Singaporeans to build up their assets. The more successful can do so on their own steam. The less successful will be assisted. But it will not be a handout. They must also put in the effort and work for it. So how do we plan to do it? We plan, as far as the housing situation is concerned, to enable Singaporeans to upgrade their old flats, so that their asset value is higher. We will also allow them to upgrade to new and bigger flats so that they have a higher investment, bigger assets. And if they can make it, we also want to facilitate their upgrading to private property. Let me assure the House that the PAP Government has achieved full home ownership within the financial resources of the Government. We have no intention to depart from this practice in our next phase to increase the assets of every Singaporean. Singaporeans want to buy bigger and better HDB flats. They see that as investing in a better asset and as investing in their future, at the same time, enjoying a higher standard of living. There is nothing wrong with people aspiring to upgrade to better quality flats if they can afford it, and with HDB meeting these aspirations. Mr Chia Shi Teck asked, with 700,000 housing units today, why are we proceeding to build so many more. As he knows, the projection for Singapore population is targeted at 4 million, if not more. The household size today is about 4.3 and steadily declining, which means, in the long term, we do need 1 million housing units to house the 4 million population.”
“From the wide range of concerns raised by Members, it is obvious that trying to meet the housing aspirations of Singaporeans is not going to be an easy task. As we have heard today, some Members have asked for more HDB flats to be built, because the waiting list is getting very long; on the other hand, Mr Chia Shi Teck has questioned why we are building so many. Before I address the specific areas raised by individual MPs, let me try to paint the big picture first. First of all, let us ask ourselves: what is the housing situation in Singapore today? Lest we forget, this is 1993. It is not 1973 when Singaporeans were just looking for a roof above their heads. It is also not 1983 when most Singaporeans were just buying their first homes. Today, more than 90% of Singaporeans own their homes. We are therefore well on the way to a full home-owning society. This is a truly remarkable achievement. It is the clearest demonstration of the Government's programme to ensure that every Singaporean has a stake in our country. It has been achieved by massive Government subsidies to housing over the years. And I say the money has been well spent. The SDP has said that HDB flats are not true ownership. It is 99 years, there are a lot of restrictions, and therefore it is not true home ownership. Let me ask the SDP: in the constituencies they represent, perhaps, the SDP should organise a campaign to ask the residents there to return the flats to the HDB because the SDP claims they do not own the flats. The HDB will be very willing to refund back their purchase price and convert their home ownership flats to rental flats. If the SDP does not have the resources to organise it, I can get HDB to organise such a campaign for them free of charge. We must understand the situation today.”
“There are constraints to implementing the programme faster because of the capacity of HDB, the construction industry as well as financial resources. This is a very expensive programme and we cannot do it in a very short period of time. But HDB will help the Town Councils to identify the precincts within the Town Councils, mark out the precincts early so that Town Councils will have an idea of the precincts and can initiate work on the master planning of the precincts. SUPPLY AND SUPPLEMENTARY SUPPLY BILLS (Business Motion) Resolved, That, notwithstanding the Standing Orders, the second and third readings of the Supply Bill for FY 93/94 and the Supplementary Supply Bill for FY 92/93 may be proceeded with immediately after the conclusion of the proceedings on the Estimates of Expenditure for FY 93/94. - [Dr Richard Hu Tsu Tau]. SECOND SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATES OF EXPENDITURE FOR FY 92/93 AND ESTIMATES OF EXPENDITURE FOR FY 93/94 (Business Motion) Resolved, That, notwithstanding the Standing Orders, the Second Supplementary Estimates of Expenditure for FY 92/93 (Paper Cmd. 6 of 1993) and the Estimates of Expenditure for FY 93/94 (Paper Cmd. 5 of 1993) be taken today. - [Dr Richard Hu Tsu Tau]. SUSPENSION OF STANDING ORDERS (Business Motion)”
“That is not what I said. I said that the Town Councils should have an idea of what the precinct to be upgraded, what it would look like, and do whatever it can in consonance with that overall plan. If you do not have an overall plan and you do it in an ad hoc manner then you have reason to regret later on.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, we want to avoid duplication of work and wastage of public funds. The Upgrading Programme is a very massive job. It is better to be done and organised centrally. If Town Councils start putting improvements on an ad hoc basis, later on when the upgrading comes to their precinct, this may have to be undone. So it will result in duplication of work and wastage of public funds. I would prefer Members to follow the schedule of HDB so that we make better use of public funds.”
“The criteria for selecting precincts to be put on the steady state phase have been announced many times. The main criteria are, first, it must form a precinct; second, the older estates should be upgraded first; and third, we will have a geographical distribution of the estates so that the benefits will spread to all Singaporeans. All things being equal, we will also look at the level of support of the residents for the programme in determining whether the precinct qualifies for the Upgrading Programme.”
“The Government has always stated that those who support this programme, the level of support will be considered when HDB assesses the precincts to be selected for the steady state phase. Mr Chiam See Tong: Am I to understand that there is, in fact, no fixed programme in regard to the HDB Upgrading Programme? There is no fixed programme in the sense that it schedules certain estates to be upgraded at a certain point of time. It will depend upon the elections.”
“Annex C - ESTIMATED AMOUNTS TO BE PAID BY FLAT-OWNERS AND GOVERNMENT UNDER STEADY STATE PHASE (Cols. 945 - 948) Mr Speaker, Sir, the revised cost-sharing arrangements for the steady state phase will focus the Upgrading Programme on improvements that provide good value for money. It will also encourage flat owners to opt for improvements that they truly need and prefer. As the Upgrading Programme will span a 15-20 year period, Government will review the cost-sharing arrangements periodically to keep flat owners' share of upgrading cost affordable. I notice many Members have filed amendments to discuss the Upgrading Programme under the Ministry of National Development (MND) in the Committee of Supply. To keep time for debate on the other Ministries, we may wish to debate this issue further in the Committee of Supply.”
“Five-room and Executive flat owners' share of upgrading cost for the Basic and Standard Packages has also been reduced from 35% to 20% and 25% of direct upgrading cost respectively. These reduced cost-sharing ratios will also apply to the standard portion of the Standard-plus Package. However, as the space-adding item is not cost-effective, flat owners' cost-share for this item has been set higher at 40% for 1-, 2-, 3-room flat owners, 60% for 4-room, 70% for 5-room, and 80% for Executive flat owners. A higher cost-share for the space-adding item has been set to ensure that only flat owners who truly need the additional space and are prepared to pay for the cost of installing it will opt for this item. Overall, the Government will bear between 90% and 75% of the direct upgrading cost under the Basic and Standard Packages. In addition, the Government will also be bearing 100% of the ancillary costs for the three upgrading packages. Let me now turn to the estimated costs. HDB has estimated that the Basic Package will cost about $30,100 per flat; the Standard Package, $42,400; and the Standard-plus Package, $67,200. Upgrading costs of all the three Packages are likely to be lower for the 1-room and 2-room flats because of the smaller flat sizes. Based on these estimated costs and the revised cost-sharing ratios, a 3-room flat owner's share of total upgrading cost works out effectively to only 7% or about $2,200 for the Basic Package. For the Standard Package, a 3-room flat owner's share amounts to only 8% of the total upgrading cost or $3,500. Members may refer to Annex C (Cols. 945 - 948) for the estimated amounts that flat owners and the Government will have to pay under the three upgrading packages.”
“Members may wish to refer to Annex A (Cols. 937 - 942) for examples of the various improvements and specific work items that could be provided under the three upgrading packages. The actual upgrading package for a specific precinct will depend on the preference of flat owners in that precinct. Annex A - POSSIBLE IMPROVEMENTS IDENTIFIED BY HDB FOR THE VARIOUS PACKAGES UNDER STEADY STATE PHASE (Cols. 937 - 942) In 1989, the Government announced that under the steady state phase of the Upgrading Programme, owners of 3-room and 4-room flats would have to pay 25% of the total upgrading cost, while those of 5-room and Executive flats were required to bear 35%. Town Councils were required to bear 5% of the total upgrading cost with the Government bearing the remaining 70% for 3- and 4-room flats and 60% for 5-room and Executive flats. However, several Town Councils have indicated that to meet their share of the upgrading cost, they may have to forgo other general improvements that they had planned to implement. To enable Town Councils to concentrate on improving the environment in their town, Government will now absorb the Town Councils' share of the upgrading cost under the steady state phase of the Upgrading Programme. Members may refer to Annex B (Cols. 943 - 944) for the revised steady state phase cost-sharing ratios. Annex B - REVISED STEADY STATE PHASE COST-SHARING RATIOS (Cols. 943 - 944) To make the Upgrading Programme affordable to the lower income groups, flat owner's share of the upgrading cost for the Basic and Standard Packages has been reduced from 25% for the 3-room and 4-room flats to only 10% and 15% of the direct upgrading cost respectively. One-room and 2-room flat owners will also pay only 10% of the direct upgrading cost.”
“Fittings and finishes put in by the residents are affected in the course of construction. Precautions are needed to prevent damage to flat owners' belongings and to minimise inconvenience to residents. All these factors jack up the cost of the space-adding item. Tender prices for the six Demonstration precincts show that the cost of the space-adding item is $4,100 per square metre compared to $1,000 per square metre for constructing new flats, in other words, four times more expensive. The space-adding item is simply not cost-effective. The Government has therefore decided to make the space-adding item optional and share the cost of this item more evenly between flat owners and the Government. Let me now turn to the second objective. Precincts to be upgraded under the steady state phase cover a wide range of income profiles. Members of Parliament from the first batch of steady state phase have indicated that some flat owners may not need or be able to afford the full range of improvements offered under the Demonstration Phase. The revised cost-sharing arrangements for the steady state phase will therefore cater to the different upgrading needs of the various precincts. The Government has therefore repackaged the improvements to be offered to flat owners in the steady state phase into three upgrading packages termed the Basic, Standard and Standard-plus Packages. The Basic Package comprises essential improvements that provide the best value for money. The space-adding item is not included. The Standard Package comprises most of the improvements offered under the Demonstration Phase, minus the space-adding item and certain less essential improvements. The Standard-plus Package comprises all the items under the Standard Package, plus a space-adding item.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, on behalf of the Minister for National Development, I would like to announce the cost-sharing arrangements for the steady state phase of the Upgrading Programme. The Pilot Phase of the Upgrading Programme has been completed while the Demonstration Phase has entered the construction stage. In the light of experience and feedback gained from these two phases, Government has revised the cost-sharing arrangements for the steady state phase of the Upgrading Programme. There are two objectives in this revision: (1) to focus on improvements that provide flat owners with the best value for money; (2) to make upgrading more affordable to the lower income groups. Let me address the first objective. The Pilot and Demonstration Phases have enabled the Government to identify a number of improvements that provide the best value for money. For example, residents are very keen on upgrading the toilets and providing lift landings on every floor. The revised cost-sharing arrangements will focus on such improvements in order to keep them affordable to residents. On the other hand, the Pilot and Demonstration Phases have also revealed that some improvements provide less value for money. One particular example is the space-adding item. Construction of this item is both costly and problematic. Existing services lying in the aprons of the blocks have to be diverted to make way for the space-adding item. Costly piling is needed. Special hacking techniques have to be used to knock down the existing wall to join the space-adding item to the flat. Dry construction and prefabrication methods have also to be used. All these procedures are required to overcome problems of site constraints as well as to minimise noise and dust.”
“You can advise your constituents not to put in their money in the CPF account.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, can I respond to Mr Walter Woon's point on the LGIA? He said that the Government acquires land for construction of roads and besides acquiring it and not paying the full market rate, it forces the owner to pay for the cost of building the road. That I say is no longer true. The LGIA is intended for building local roads which benefit the owners of the land fronting the road. It was passed in the early days when many roads were made of sand and laterite and the LGIA was introduced when these owners wanted a proper road made. And the Government came in, built the road and charged the cost of building the road to the land owners according to the frontages, ie, according to the benefit that they gained from building the road. Today, such a practice still happens for local roads where the Government builds a road that benefits the owners of the frontages there. The Government will acquire the land based on market rate, build the road and charge the owners who benefit from building the road according to their share of the benefit. And for the owner who has to give up his land, the cost of the land is then deducted from his cost of building the road. So, as far as the building of local roads to benefit such owners is concerned, it is done in a very equitable way. Where the Government acquires land to build roads that serve the national network, the Government pays market rate for the land according to the Land Acquisition Act and does not charge the land owners for the cost of building roads in the national road network.”
“I would appreciate it if the Member also files a separate question, so that we can answer it.”
“I would appreciate it if the Member files a separate question. Then we will take it up and give him the answer with all the facts.”
“It entirely depends on their needs. If they need to expand and they want to apply for more, we will consider their application. But if they do not need so many centres, why should HDB foist all these centres on to them?”
“Such organisations also enjoy the same rate of rental.”
“There are many charitable organisations and foundations using HDB void decks for their purposes.”
“That is precisely correct. Mr Speaker, the HDB will let out premises in its void decks to any approved foundation.”
“Let me repeat the answer. Under the existing policy, the tenant of an educational centre, which must be an approved foundation, like the PAP Community Foundation, can allow the premises to be used by other organisations up to a maximum of 20% of the total operational hours. The only condition is that they cannot charge rent exceeding the rent payable to HDB.”
“Mr Speaker, we went through this discussion several times before. The position is that the HDB lets out premises to the PAP Community Foundation. Under the tenancy agreement, the PAP Community Foundation is allowed to let out, up to 20% of its premises in terms of operational hours, to any approved sub-tenant.”
“The premises used by the Marine Parade Branch were the premises allocated by the HDB to the Education Centre. The tenant is the PAP Community Foundation, not a PAP MP.”
“HDB has ceased the practice of letting out MPs' offices to all MPs, whether PAP or the Opposition.”
“The MPs' offices were returned to the HDB over a period of time from the letters given to them in September 1991 and within the one-year grace period. If he want specifics, we will give him a written answer. But the offices were returned over a period of one year.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, the HDB has not served any Notices to Quit on People's Action Party Members of Parliament, to recover possession of their offices situated at the void decks of HDB estates. This is because, following my Ministry's decision in September 1991 that HDB would no longer provide MPs with offices at HDB void decks, all PAP MPs have returned their MPs' offices at HDB void decks to HDB.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, kerbside parking lots for overnight parking of heavy vehicles are currently provided along selected roads in HDB and industrial estates. PWD, in consultation with the Traffic Police, has identified stretches of roads where parking of heavy vehicles will not pose a danger to other road users. To control indiscriminate parking of heavy vehicles, PWD has announced a comprehensive plan to introduce a Vehicle Parking Certificate Scheme for heavy vehicles by the end of this year. The Scheme requires each heavy vehicle to have an authorised lot for overnight parking. HDB and URA have tendered out eight off-street sites to the private sector to develop heavy vehicle parking facilities. More sites will be tendered out for heavy vehicle parking. In addition, PWD will allow some car park lots in industrial and commercial premises to be used for overnight parking of heavy vehicles. VISIT OF SPEAKER OF THE STATE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF SARAWAK (Presence in Gallery)”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, since 1975, a surcharge has been imposed on private car park lots in and around the Restricted Zone. The surcharge, currently at $60 per lot per month, is part of a package of measures to reduce traffic congestion in the city by promoting the use of public transport rather than private cars for commuting. The surcharge helps to ensure that owners of private car parks in the city do not set car park charges at so low a level that it becomes more attractive to use cars instead of buses or the MRT. As the policy of encouraging use of public transport, in preference to private cars, remains valid, it would not be appropriate to reduce the surcharge. Owners of buildings with car park lots in excess of the minimum provisions can, if they wish, apply to the planning authorities for permission to convert the excess space for other allowable uses. ROADSIDE PARKING FOR HEAVY VEHICLES IN HOUSING ESTATES 11. Mr Cheo Chai Chen asked the Minister for National Development whether his Ministry will provide roadside parking lots for the parking of heavy vehicles from 10.00 pm to 7.00 am in suitable localities in housing estates.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, annual values of HDB flats are determined by the Chief Assessor of the Inland Revenue Authority of Singapore. Like any other property, HDB flats, whether upgraded, new or old, will be professionally valued based on prevailing market conditions. A point to note is that HDB flats are owner-occupied and, therefore, enjoy a concessionary property tax rate of 4%. As an example, a 3-room HDB flat would attract an annual property tax of only $100 on the average. So even if the property tax were to increase by 10%, it will not be more than $10 on the average. Flat owners are required to share a certain percentage of total upgrading cost. As the Upgrading Programme is expected to take between 15 and 20 years, both Government and flat owners' share of upgrading cost in dollar terms will increase over time as a result of inflation. CAR PARK LOT SURCHARGE (Reduction) 10. Dr Wang Kai Yuen asked the Minister for National Development whether he will reduce the car park lot levy so that parking lots currently fenced off in private car parks can be released into the market.”
“If the RC member has a season parking ticket, he is allowed to park in all HDB car parks within the same constituency to facilitate his work as a community leader within the constituency. ETHNIC CEILINGS FOR ADMISSION TO PRIMARY SCHOOLS 16. Dr Kanwaljit Soin asked the Minister for Education if he will consider introducing ethnic ceilings for admission to primary schools to promote inter-racial interaction and understanding.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, the Member has suggested that a season ticket holder be allowed to park in another car park group within the same HDB neighbourhood where his immediate family members reside. I take it that this is with the intention of encouraging the preservation and enhancement of family ties. To encourage relatives and friends to visit one another, HDB has introduced the Free Parking Scheme on Sundays and public holidays. This scheme now covers 1,105 car parks, or 86% of the total number of car parks island-wide. This, in my Ministry's view, is a sufficient measure for the purposes that we assume are intended by the Member. If the Member's suggestion to grant reciprocal parking rights is implemented, HDB will have difficulties restricting it to immediate family members residing within the same neighbourhood. Immediate family members who are not staying within the same neighbourhood would also request similar privileges. After all, it could be argued that there is a greater need to extend reciprocal parking rights to such residents, in view of the greater distances involved in maintaining family ties. For HDB to meet all these requests, however, will cause congestion to the car parks, and lead to residents being unfairly deprived of parking lots, especially in the popular car parks.”
“Now I must answer in Tamil. I have already said that the office use is occasional and does not constitute a material change of use and, therefore, there is no need to apply for planning permission. ZONAL PARKING IN SAME HDB NEIGHBOURHOOD (Granting of reciprocal parking rights between immediate family members) 15. Mr Tong Kok Yeo asked the Minister for National Development whether the Housing and Development Board will consider extending the zonal parking by granting reciprocal parking rights between immediate family members who live in the same HDB neighbourhood.”
“The tenancy agreement allows the tenant to sub-let its use and it is working well within the tenancy agreement. So when the HDB gave the premises to the PCF, it is provided for within the tenancy agreement for the PCF to sub-let it for not more than 20% of its operational hours. Mr Chiam See Tong: I am not happy with the Minister's answer. I want an answer - "Yes" or "No". Has planning permission been given to the PAP Community Foundation for a political purpose? "Yes" or "No"?”
“Maybe I could answer in Mandarin the next time.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, the premises were let to the PCF to conduct kindergarten classes. Indeed, it conducts kindergarten classes and, therefore, it is well within its Tenancy Agreement for the use that it applied for. Many other premises that have tenancy agreement with HDB are also allowed to have sub-letting provisions in their tenancy. So this is not something unusual. In getting the premises from HDB, they are allowed 20% of their operational hours to be let out for non-profit purposes. For example, in my PCF centre, we let out the premises in the evening for conducting BEST classes. These are all non-profit organisations. We did not depart from our main purpose, which is to run kindergarten classes for our students. But when it is not used at night, we let it out for all other uses, for example, BEST classes.”
“Sir, obviously, the Member for Potong Pasir did not pay attention to my answer. First, whether the PAP Community Foundation is allowed to sub-let its premises for other non-profit purposes. I have already explained that the Tenancy Agreement allows the PCF to use the premises for non-profit purposes for a maximum of 20% of the total operational hours. The PCF operates the premises at a concessionary rent and when the PCF sub-lets its premises to non-profit organisations, the rent that it charges to such non-profit organisations is not allowed to exceed the concessionary monthly rent payable to HDB. So the PCF is a non-profit organisation and does not make profit out of sub-letting. Secondly, the use of the premises for meet-the-people sessions at two hours per week is within these guidelines. Since the use is only two hours per week, the use is occasional and does not constitute a material change of use. Therefore, there is no need to seek planning permission.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, part of the void deck at Block 143 Potong Pasir Avenue 2 has been let to the PAP Community Foundation (PCF) by HDB since 1st July 1987 for use as an Education Centre. Under the terms of the Tenancy Agreement, the tenant may allow other organisations to use the premises for non-profit purposes for a maximum of 20% of the total operational hours within a year, subject to the rent charged not exceeding the monthly rent payable to HDB. The use of a room in the premises for meet-the-people sessions held two hours per week is within these guidelines. Since office use is occasional and does not constitute a material change of use, there is no need to seek planning permission.”
“Sir, rent de- control is a private matter between the landlord and his tenants. However, to mitigate the impact of rent de-control, the Government put in place the Old Single Person Tenants scheme, which gives priority allocation of HDB rental flats to old single persons affected by rent de-control. In view of the fact that many of those affected by rent de-control in and around the Central Area are low-income families, I am pleased to announce that my Ministry has decided that, with effect from 1st February 1993, priority allocation of 2-room HDB rental flats will be extended to families affected by rent de-control, on terms similar to priority allocation for families affected by Government resettlement. As for those families which can afford to buy their own flats, HDB will give them priority allocation to purchase Home Ownership flats, on terms similar to priority allocation for families affected by Government resettlement, as long as they satisfy the normal eligibility conditions. GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL LAND LEASES AND FACTORY RENTALS (Policy on pricing structure) 12. Mr Robert Chua Teck Chew asked the Minister for Trade and Industry if he will explain the Government's policy concerning the pricing structure of government industrial land leases and factory rentals and whether any measures have been taken to ensure that such pricing will not unduly erode the international competitiveness of Singapore manufacturers.”
“If the Member remembers, we had a Commission of Inquiry and the Building Control Act was put in place precisely because of the lessons learnt from the Hotel New World's case. RAISING OF SUBSIDY FOR CHILDCARE The following Question stood in the name of Mr Peter Sung - 4. To ask the Minister for Community Development whether he will raise the subsidy for childcare.”
“As the Member has said, there are many thousands of renovation works being done, and these have always been carried out well within the regulations. They have been done in accordance with the regulations. We have had very little problems. This is the first case where we have a very unusual combination of factors. First, the flat was renovated during the resale transaction. So we have to take action against both the new purchaser as well as against the original lessee. Second, the contractor is an unlicensed contractor. So we have to take action against him under the Building Control Act as well as under the Penal Code. HDB is also exploring whether we should take action against the parties concerned through civil action as well.”
“Let me clarify. HDB's action against the lessee is not a civil matter. The lessee is a lessee of HDB and under the lease terms he has certain obligations, one of which is to seek permission for any renovations to his flat. In this case, the lessee did not seek permission and the HDB would take action against the lessee by making him pay for the damage and the subsequent costs of repairing the column, failing which HDB has the power to acquire his flat. On the question of whether the contractors should take up insurance cover, we have left it to the contractors themselves. In any business, they know the risks they are in, and if they think they need to take up insurance cover, we leave it entirely to the business concerned.”
“Under the present regulations, the lessee has to seek HDB's permission before carrying out renovation works. In this case, when the works are carried out without the approval of the HDB, HDB has two options against the owner. First, it will require the owner to make good the damages and all costs arising from the damages. The second action against the lessee will be to compulsorily acquire the flat if the lessee does not pay the damages. As for action against the contractor, in this case it is an unlicensed contractor, action will be taken against him both under the Penal Code as well as under the Building Control Act. If he were a licensed contractor carrying out unauthorised works, HDB has measures to debar the contractor as well as impose fines to recover the cost.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, the question by the hon. Member for Tampines GRC presumably arises from the recent incident at Block 212 Jurong East Street 21 where an unlicensed contractor damaged the structural column of the block in the process of carrying out renovation works. The contractor had been engaged by the new buyer of the flat, with the consent of the existing lessee. The renovation works were unauthorised as they were carried out without HDB's prior approval. My Ministry is investigating the matter. If appropriate, we will take action against the errant parties (lessee, buyer and contractor) under section 5 of the Building Control Act for carrying out unauthorised building works. The maximum penalty for the offence is one year's imprisonment and a fine of $50,000. Meanwhile, HDB has taken action against the contractor by reporting the case to the Police. The Police are considering charging him under section 288 of the Penal Code for knowingly or negligently pulling down a structural column of a building without sufficient safeguard against any probable danger to human life. Section 288 provides for a maximum penalty of 6 months' imprisonment and a $1,000 fine.”
“Our approach is to provide flats, particularly the 3-room and 4-room flats which are affordable, to most Singaporeans. More than 90% of Singaporeans can buy 3-room and 4-room flats. For those who want to buy 5-room and Executive flats, our approach is to provide a wide range of flat types covering all the price range and we leave it to the individual to determine what particular flat or which particular price range he wants to buy. My advice to young couples setting up home is not to go for the biggest Executive flat in Pasir Ris, which is the upper end of the price range, but to go for something which they can comfortably afford. UNAUTHORISED RENOVATIONS OF HDB FLATS (Enhancement of penalty) 3. Mr Chng Hee Kok asked the Minister for National Development if he will enhance the penalty for unauthorised renovations of Housing and Development Board flats which endanger public safety.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, HDB has, and will continue to, provide affordable housing for the majority of Singaporeans. The Government's approach to public housing is to ensure that the housing needs of every income group are catered for. To this end, HDB provides a range of flat types, in various new towns, covering a wide range of prices. In each booking exercise, buyers have a wide price range from which to choose from, even for the same flat type within the same new town. Buyers can thus choose flats within their means. As a general guideline, HDB flats are priced to ensure that 3-and 4-room flats are affordable to the average income household. Those with higher incomes can buy 5-room and Executive flats. Based on the current average price of $106,000 for a 4-room flat, a young couple, both of whom have worked for about six years, with a current monthly combined income of $1,200, would have sufficient CPF funds to make the 20% downpayment as well as to service the monthly mortgage payment for a new 4-room flat. To afford a 3-room flat which costs about $60,000, a young couple, also having worked for about six years, with a current monthly combined income of $700 would have sufficient CPF funds to make the 20% downpayment as well as to service the monthly mortgage payments. The 1990 Population Census shows that 92% of households in Singapore have monthly incomes of $700, ie, 92% would be able to afford the 3-room flat and about 80% of households have monthly incomes of $1,200, ie, 80% can afford at least a 4-room flat. HDB flats are thus affordable to the majority of Singaporeans. HDB has not deviated from its mission of providing affordable housing for Singaporeans.”